So, I feel that the continuing military efforts by the UN over Iraq are justified. Saddam and his crew have it so ingrained in their heads that they can get away with whatever they want, from oppressing their own people to invading other lands. He's a very bad boy.

------------------
http://www.pshosting.com/

fast and inexpensive web hosting and domain registration

quote:

---

Originally posted by DjSokol:
The thing is, I think we should stop fucking around with him and just kill him already.

---

The thing is that supposedly his son(s) are fucking insane. They are worried that if they kill him on of his sons will launch every fucking thing they have (convetional, chemical and nuclear) at everyone.

Fuel Air Explosives are almost as good as a nuke. level Baghdad and be done with the fucknuggets.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.TeamWolfguard.com

What UN are doing is torture to the Iraqi. They've been living in a constant warzone for many years now. Saddam might be insane, but the people aren't. Why bomb them instead of Saddam? Is it to drive Saddam out? Then your actions are called terrorism...

There's been bombings every other day in Iraq, ever since the Gulf War. If he is pissed at USA I can surely understand. And while knowing that USA is bombing him he sees military aircrafts loaded with weapons is flying around his capital city, I can understand the paranoya he must feel. So offcourse he pointed his antiaircraft at you. Everyone would. But instead of figuring out why (instead of even thinking about why), UN launched an attack. This is NOT good. This is a BAD move from the UN. Because EVERYONE knows that he wouldn't fire at the patrol if the patrol didn't fire at him. That would be stupid. And he isn't that insane. If he started the fire at any time against the USA/UN/Whatever...the world would be at his throat seconds after. And he wouldn't want that to happen.

I'm not justifying his previous actions, but I still believe that he has been tought enough of a lesson not to fuck up again. And shooting at him won't help ANYTHING. He'll just get more pissed at you. And if you keep it up he'll launch everything he's got against you and commit suicide. I think that the recent attack on his defence was dumber than shit. Nothing good could ever come from it. Even the americans that where interviewed by the danish reporters in washington told that it was nothing but a demonstration of power and new politics from George Bush.

And you US-military freaks. You actually have to see that the US can make mistakes from time to time if one can have a reasonable discussion with you. Not like Kuru that bites your head off if you say something bad about USA. And I know a few mistakes the USA have made. But I've never heard an american admit any of them. To give an example of a mistake I can say Hiroshima. And the second bomb was an even larger mistake than the first. You can't ever justify those, so don't go around thinking that USA only does "good stuff". You are just as big pigs in warfare than everyone else.

And again...I'm not on Saddams side, but I still believe that you have to obey human rights if you see yourself fit to judge others by them. And torturing the Iraqi is NOT obeying human rights. No matter if it's Saddam or USA. It's just as bad.

This message has been edited by Kolben on February 20, 2001 at 07:07 AM

quote:

---

simple solution: we kill him, put somebody smart in power (preferably a jew )

---

damn straight!

------------------
A Physics major asks "Why does it work?"
An Engineering major asks "How does it work?"
A Buisness major asks "How much will it cost?"
A Liberal Arts major asks "Do you want fries with that?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
Hmmm...Wolfguard...if someone in the US government did something bad, would that justify nuking USA?

---

if the usa contiuned to be stupid about it, yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
What UN are doing is torture to the Iraqi. They've been living in a constant warzone for many years now. Saddam might be insane, but the people aren't. Why bomb them instead of Saddam? Is it to drive Saddam out? Then your actions are called terrorism...

---

If the people of that country leave that fucknugget in power then they agree with what he does. They have not made a move to remove him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

There's been bombings every other day in Iraq, ever since the Gulf War.

---

Not every day. Only after weeks of warnings that the bombs will be droped unless the shit stops.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

If he is pissed at USA I can surely understand. And while knowing that USA is bombing him he sees military aircrafts loaded with weapons is flying around his capital city, I can understand the paranoya he must feel.

---

Wrong again fucknugget. the planes are there to keep him from bombing the people that are trying to fight against him and the people that want nothing to do with it at all. His own people. people in his country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

So offcourse he pointed his antiaircraft at you. Everyone would. But instead of figuring out why (instead of even thinking about why), UN launched an attack. This is NOT good. This is a BAD move from the UN. Because EVERYONE knows that he wouldn't fire at the patrol if the patrol didn't fire at him. That would be stupid. And he isn't that insane.

---

Wrong again Fucknugget. There has been anti-aircraft fire the entire time. The reason this was done is to keep SAMs from being able to track targets. Missles that can take down our planes where the AA guns failed. To keep safe the people, our people, that are trying to keep others from being bombed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

If he started the fire at any time against the USA/UN/Whatever...the world would be at his throat seconds after. And he wouldn't want that to happen.

---

And the world is not there now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

I'm not justifying his previous actions, but I still believe that he has been tought enough of a lesson not to fuck up again. And shooting at him won't help ANYTHING. He'll just get more pissed at you. And if you keep it up he'll launch everything he's got against you and commit suicide.

---

Now just before you said that he is not that insane. now you say this. Pick one and stick to it. Do you know any of the history of that area? Before kuwait he invaded Iran. The only group of people more nuts than he is. went on for 8 years with no gains at all. This is sane? he INVADED kuwait. a group of people that just wanted to keep their good life with money that came out of the ground they happened to live on. What right did he have. This lesson can end easy for him and his people. Step down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

I think that the recent attack on his defence was dumber than shit. Nothing good could ever come from it. Even the americans that where interviewed by the danish reporters in washington told that it was nothing but a demonstration of power and new politics from George Bush

---

Nothing new here. This has been going on every 2 or 3 months since 92. Its just the same old politics. we just want our pilots to come after every night of protecting his own people from him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

To give an example of a mistake I can say Hiroshima. And the second bomb was an even larger mistake than the first. You can't ever justify those, so don't go around thinking that USA only does "good stuff". You are just as big pigs in warfare than everyone else.

---

Lets see. i drop 2 bombs and end a war with a power that i did nothing to but attacked me anyway. I gave them lots of warning about the cities i was about to vaporise. The war ended a few days later and i did not have to expend any more of my people or totaly distroy his country to do it.

Just how is this a mistake?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

And again...I'm not on Saddams side, but I still believe that you have to obey human rights

---

but he does not? That is what you are basicly saying. If not for the no fly zones he would be bombing the women and children of the people that do not agree with him or just want to stay out of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

if you see yourself fit to judge others by them. And torturing the Iraqi is NOT obeying human rights. No matter if it's Saddam or USA. It's just as bad.

---

But you see yourself fit to judge the US without having all the facts?
I judge them by there actions. ass soon as the no-fly zones go down he starts bombing his own people. That is what i judge him by. He is still in power, that is what i judge the people by.

Try this. get all your FACTS straight and come back and play.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.TeamWolfguard.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
Explain that please. I don't know that phrase...

---

Lesser of two evils:

We could have invaded Japan. About 800,000 (EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND!) American troops had been/were being shipped into the Pacific theatre in preparation for the invasion. Even more were on the way.

You think Normandy was bloody? Hitler had to fortify the entire North Atlantic coastline, from France to Norway. We even managed to attack at a point he wasn't expecting. Japan had only to fortify their island. There are few positions that lend themself to defense like an island. The concentration of firepower on both sides would have been unbelievable. If and when their defenses would be breached, the Japanese would have faught to the very last dying man and woman to kill in the invaders. We knew they would; they had done it on every island the Marines had taken before. Cities would have been shelled and levelled, just like in Europe. Millions more would have died, fighting over that floating rock. The Japanese would not have surrendered until they were overrun. This was one choice, one evil.

Or, we could drop The Bomb. Hiroshima was a city of, what, 300,000? Three hundred thousand Japanese dead, instantly, and more from the radiation. An entire city and industrial complex annihilated in a heartbeat. Only a show of such totally overwhelming and undefensible strength would have caused a surrender. But the Japanese high command didn't even believe the reports of Hiroshima. They couldn't. Inferior foreigners could not have done such a thing so easily. So what other choices did we have? Go ahead with the invasion, which at a conservative estimate would result in TEN TIMES as many casualties? Or drop our other bomb, and hope they see reason?

The Nagasaki bomb was the only other one we had built. There wouldn't have been more atomics ready until 4-6 months later. It was a last gamble to force a quick end to the war, and save American lives. Once the atomic cat was out of the bag, it wasn't going back. So Nagasaki went up in flame.

And the Japanese surrendered. No invasion, no gigantic mounds of bodies piled up on the beaches, no shells raining down on Tokyo. The Pacific war ended with the death of less than a million Japanese.

So, there you have it. A million Japanese dead, or millions more dead including Americans. A bad choice, and a worse choice. I, for one, am glad we went with Bad.

This message has been edited by Vigilante on February 20, 2001 at 10:01 AM